asymetric warfare

In ,
Peter Stickney radiated into the WorldWideWait:
In article ,
"John" writes:
"phil hunt" wrote in

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a
war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

To deal with the US Army...
Use SUVs with anti-tank rockets and a millimetric radar mounted on
the back. In iraq US gunners opened fire at 5miles. Since the
rounds travel at a mile/second, this would give an SUV 5 seconds
to dudge, which would be simple with guidence from the radar.
Meanwhile the top-attack missiles tear through the thin turret
roofs. Buy a few otto-76mm armed tanks with dual use surface/air
to deal with incomming aircraft/missiles/bombs/helicopters and to
rip enemy soldiers to pieces.

5 seconds to dodge... Dodge where, exqctly? In what direction? How
much? To be at the least effective, you're going to have to somehow
get 1 vehicle's size distance away from where you were. Since SUV's
don't move a 1 mile/second...
Oh, and what if the Rascally Americans don't open fire at 5 miles
Becasue there's in a city, or there's intervening terrain, or you're
not a visible target, and engave at a shorter distance? (Which is
what happens. Even 500m (1500') is long range when you're not
shooting at, say, Iraqi tanks in the open desert. In that case,
they wouldn't be engaging SUV-type things with Main Gun rounds.
('cause it would go through the SUV, and the SUV behind the SUV,
and the Tree behing the SUV behing the SUV, and the School behind
the tree - you get the idea) They'd use either the .50 cal MG on
the turret top, or teh .30 cal co-ax. (Don't discount the Coax.
It's got a dedicated gunner with a telescopic sight, a laser
rangefinder, and is mounted on a 65-ton tripod. In that case, you
don't have 1 round to dodge, but several dozen.

As for the top-attack missile - when is it going to be fired? Who's
going to guide it? How are they going to maintian guidance for the
20-60 seconds it will take to reach its target while riding in a
moving/evading/exploding SUV?

To deal with the US Air Force...
Buy old airliners and fit with reloadable missile launchers and
modern AA radar, counter measures, and refueling probe. Take old
fighter designs, and hang them fully fueled and armed from
ballons. That'll multiply thier endurance by a factor of ten at
least. Fit search-radar in envelope and have them patrol your
boarder. Network them together and you'll have an end to surprise
US attacks.

I'd pay good money to see an F-104/Mirage II/MiG-21 launched from a
balloon.If you could make that one work, Ringling Brothers would
give you a contract But Quick. As for refrobbing old airliners as
long-endurance Patrol Fighter AWACS - well, first, they're easy to
detect, and therefore, neutralize. You can either shoot them down,
or go around them. Being airliners, their ability to move
crossrange will be poor. They'll also need improved airbases, and,
as you mention, tankers. WHen the bases disappear, so does your
Air Defence. (It's always struck me as amusing how many folks seem
to think that all you need to improve aircraft range is a probe.
You also need tankers. Lats of tankers. Lots of big tankers.
Consider that in 1982, the RAF used its entire tanker force to get
one Vulcan from Ascention Island to Port Stanley. (Victors, in
this case - Not a lot of tankers, and not a lot of transfer fuel.
The same mission could have been flown, by the U.Ss. with 3
aircraft - 1 B-52, and 2 KC-135s. The U.S. tanker fleet alone
outnumbers most other nations entire Air Forces.

To deal with the US Navy...
Buy old torpedos and fit to larch home made rockets (see X-prize
entries) with 50-100 mile range. Get the rockets to dump the
torpedos within a few miles of a nimitz carrier groups and you're
garanteed to blow up something *really* expensive!

A _lot_ harder than you think. And the launches will be detected. A
Numitz at flank speed would be a significant distance from the
inital impact area before the Super ASROC you've described gets
there. At which point, the torp, if it survives the impact intact
(not a trivial thing), is goig to have a hard time finding a
profitable target. In the meantime, you've now 1: Revealed your
intentions in an unambiguous manner, and 2: Nicely marked all of
your launching sites. making it damned hard to clain that it wasn't
your doing. Teh end effect, even if you do hit a ship, would be an
awful lot like kicking a nest of Africanized Bees.

Alternatively buy the following:
1 million RPG-7s
5 million RPG-7 rounds
10 million AK-74s
1 billion bullets
Distribute evenly through out your population, train them, set up a
Swiss-style monitoring system, and let the Americans invade. Then
blow up everything of value they own the second they let their
guard down. They'll leave in a few months and you can go back to
normal.


In order to do that, you have to have a population that thinks the
country you're leading is worth fighting for. But then, countries
that its citizens thing are worth fighting for tend not to be high
profile targets to the U.S.

Alternatively fly a few airliners into american nuclear power
stations. The aftermath of multiple chernobles will destroy
America as an effective strategic power.

Well, the onlu problem with _that_ one is that Chyernoble, bas as
it was, didn't depopulate large stretches of the Ukraine or Russia.
U.S. racotrs have far superior containment, and, in fact, are
required to be designed such that they can shrug off a direct hit
from a large airliner.

You are the illegitemate son of Robert S. Macnamara, and I claim my
5.00!

I support Peter's claim to the Fiver.
John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.
Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.
And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where people
the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding machines. So they
aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to invade.

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming that the tanks will
close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
fire. I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
down smart munitions.

And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where people
the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding machines. So they
aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to invade.

However the question wasn't about poor countries, but middle-ranking ones,
which I took to mean ones comparable to most european nations. Of such I'd
say only Britian or France had the capacity to blunt a US attack, and only
because they can both MIRV task-forces whilst they cross the atlantic.
Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

ANTIcarrot.

"John" wrote:

:In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
:is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming that the tanks will
:close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
:fire.

So it is impossible for a tank to kill anything? Oddly, experience
seems to indicate otherwise. Tanks are harder to kill than trucks.
Tanks kill tanks all the time. You figure it out.

:I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
:down smart munitions.

I'm not sure you understand just how hard this is to do. Obviously,
by your lights, smart munitions can't kill anything, either. Again,
our current reality would tend to be somewhat at odds with your
planet.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

"John" writes:

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle.

To dodge a tank round while driving an SUV, you need to side-step the full
soft-target kill radius of a 120mm HEAT-MP round. Unless the Brits are in
the game, in which case it's 120mm HESH.

Good luck.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"John" wrote:

Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

ROTFLMAO.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

Who needs nuclear buckshots if your opponent has nuclear weapons in storage or
in silos,but unfortunately you do need to be utmostly precise.

In ,
John radiated into the WorldWideWait:
"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all
you need do is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming
that the tanks will close to ploint blank range is stupid when they
are facing concentrated AT fire. I'm also not sure he understood
the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot down smart munitions.

And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where
people the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding
machines. So they aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to
invade.

However the question wasn't about poor countries, but

Straw man.
I did NOT say a word concerning the wealth, relative or absolute, of
countries. In fact, I don't think ANYone did.

middle-ranking ones, which I took to mean ones comparable to most
european nations.

Both the *stars* of Old Europe, Germany & France, have a history of
mass slaughter of citizenry when a new "leader" takes office.

In article ,
"John" writes:
"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming that the tanks will
close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
fire. I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to shoot
down smart munitions.

Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War. Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
unlikely. (Lots of irregular terrain, lots of trees & brush - European
forests are like gardens in comparison.) Engagement ranges within
urban areas are very short - usually on the order of 200m or so.

Time of Flight for a main gun round to 2000m is about 1.2 seconds.
Time of Flight to 200m, is (Wait for it - 0.12 seconds.
Now, Sport, How much are you going to be dodging your SUV in 1.2
seconds. Be aware that you'll have to shave at least 0.5 seconds off
of that for the driver's reaction time.

Also consider that your millimeter-wave emitting SUV is ligking itself
up like a neon sign in a part of the radio spectrum that nothing else
is on. A couple of sinple horn antannae on the turret sides (Sort of
like the old coincidence rangefinder ears) for DFing, and an
omnidirectional antenna up with the Wind Sensor on the turret roof for
general detection, and you won't, say, be able to hide your
Tank-Killer SUV in Madman Morris's SUV Dealership's parking lot.


And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where people
the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding machines. So they
aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to invade.

However the question wasn't about poor countries, but middle-ranking ones,
which I took to mean ones comparable to most european nations. Of such I'd
say only Britian or France had the capacity to blunt a US attack, and only
because they can both MIRV task-forces whilst they cross the atlantic.
Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.
U.S. Supply Convoys hump along at 20 kts, these days, so you're
looking at a 10 NM circle there.
Time of arrival of U.S. ICBM ('cause we're Nice Guys, and aren't going
to unleacsh somethig on the order of 10 Trident MIRVs on your country,
and only take out single targets, roughtly 1.0-1.5 hours after launch.
Your Command Centers and missile bases, or Missile Sub ports don't
move, and you made the mistake of going Nuclear first.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote...

Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.

I can only go by what I read. On sedcond thoughts, that does sound a bit far
though....

Also consider that your millimeter-wave emitting SUV is ligking itself
up like a neon sign in a part of the radio spectrum that nothing else
is on. A couple of sinple horn antannae on the turret sides (Sort of
like the old coincidence rangefinder ears) for DFing, and an
omnidirectional antenna up with the Wind Sensor on the turret roof for
general detection, and you won't, say, be able to hide your
Tank-Killer SUV in Madman Morris's SUV Dealership's parking lot.

On the other hand five miles is about the right range for AT-missiles. So if
your tanks want to get to point blank range they'll still need to drive
through a kill-zone. At 40mph that'll take seven and a half minutes. How
many tanks will die in that time before they even get off a single shot?

Of course helicopters would be sent first, but you can buy 100 SUVs for the
cost of a single tank. The helicopters may simply run out of missiles.
Unlike tanks the SUVs may well be able to see as well as they can. And
unlike tanks, the SUVs can fire-back.


Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy could
get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which will
start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a carrier explode
within an area of 254,469,005m2. So you need a total of 12 warheads (or two
missiles) to kill the convoy. This assumes the US has perfect reaction
times, and can instantly guess the target at the moment of launch, which it
can't. As I said, nuclear buckshot will kill most things.


Time of arrival of U.S. ICBM ('cause we're Nice Guys, and aren't going
to unleacsh somethig on the order of 10 Trident MIRVs on your country,
and only take out single targets, roughtly 1.0-1.5 hours after launch.
Your Command Centers and missile bases, or Missile Sub ports don't
move, and you made the mistake of going Nuclear first.

Attacking a military convoy (particularly of an agressor) is very different
from attacking a civilian or semi-civilian target. Particularly when the
fall-out will drift over large parts of europe, who will not exactly thank
you in exchange. Again, there is no international law that says, "Thou shalt
not attack the US." The US would also *not* launch against the british
islands without making damn sure they'd knocked out our ballistic submarines
first. Otherwise a single sub can destroy america. MAD remember?

Besiodes which we have no silos or command centers! Have you seen the state
of London traffic? There's be no way the PM could get out in time! ^.^

ANTIcarrot.

"John" wrote in
:

[snip]

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy
could get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which
will start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a
carrier explode within an area of 254,469,005m2. So you need a total

Well, I suupose if there was a large quantity of fuel lying about
in puddles on deck that might be true, otherwise what kind of
drugs are you on?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source